Competitor Black Hat Link Building?
-
Hello big-brained Moz folks,
We recently used Open Site Explorer to compile a list of inbound linking domains to one of our clients, alongside domains linking to a major competitor.
This competitor, APBSpeakers.com, is dominating the search results with many #1 rankings for highly competitive phrases, even though their onsite SEO is downright weak. This competitor also has exponentially more links(602k vs. 2.4k) and way more content(indexed pages) reported than any of their competitors, which seems physically impossible to me. Linking root domains are shown as 667 compared to 170 for our client, who has been in business for 10+ years.
Taking matters a step further, linking domains for this competitor include such authoritative domains as:
- Cnn.com
- TheGuardian.com
- PBS.org
- HuffingtonPost.com
- LATimes.com
- Time.com
- CBSNews.com
- NBCNews.com
- Princeton.edu
- People.com
Sure, I can see getting a few high profile linking domains but the above seems HIGHLY suspicious to me.
Upon further review, I searched CNN, The Guardian and PBS for all variations of this competitors name and domain name and found no immediate mentions of their name. I smell a rat and I suspect APB is using some sort behind-the-scenes programming to make these "links" happen, but I have no idea how. If this isn't the case, they must have a dedicated PR person with EXTREMELY strong connections to secure this links, but even this seems like a stretch.
It's conceivable that APB is posting comments on all of the above sites, along with links, however, I was under the impression that all such posts were NoFollow and carried no link juice. Also, paid advertisements on the above sites should be NoFollow as well, right?
Anyway, we're trying to get to the bottom of this issue and determine what's going on. If you have any thoughts or words of wisdom to help us compete with these seemingly Black Hat SEO tactics, I'd sure love to hear from you.
Thanks for your help. I appreciate it very much.
Eric
-
If you go to the OSE results page, start clicking on the links, view source, then do a search for APBSpeakers you will find them. Here is the Huffington Post one, for example: “When I turned 5, I had had symptoms of AIDS. I had had fungus in my brain, blood infections, pneumonia,” Hydeia told Oprah back then.
-
The cnn link is on this page: http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/26/opinion/david-love-medgar-evers-trayvon-martin-survivors/index.htm
In this paragraph: Meanwhile, not unlike Myrlie Evers-Williams, Sybrina Fulton found her calling through grief nearly 50 years later.
-
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/interviews/human-rights-advocate-mavis-leno/ -- Link is in the external links section with the anchor "Ms. Leno's Bio"
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/apr/20/eric-schmidt-google-alan-rusbridger -- Link is on anchor Jared Cohen
I didn't see the reference to a link from CNN.
-Jake
-
Hi Linda,
Thanks for your input. Much appreciate it. Can you show me a page or two where you see those links located? I actually searched the page source for variations of APB, speakers bureau, etc. and saw nothing. Perhaps I wasn't looking in the right place.
Thanks again for your help.
Eric
-
Hi Jake,
Thanks for taking the time to dig into this and provide me with some advice. You bring up some good points that are well taken.
I will speak with the client about this and reach out to you at Angular if we need a hand.
Thanks again.
Eric
-
Hi Eric,
I understand it can be frustrating and challenging to succeed and manage client expectations when working in a competitive space where business may use tactics that your client is not comfortable with. It's also unfortunate that links often have such a strong signal that rankings can still be achieved regardless of the quality of onsite SEO.
Typically many of the large publications no-follow their comment links and links on paid advertisements. It is important to note that Google may still consider those links as part of some other signal and that achieving a placement on those sites can often lead to additional press, citations, etc. on other sites that may place followed links.
... however, you must also consider that Google's goal is to confidently provide the website it believes searches will find most relevant to their query. A few facts I quickly dug up on APB
- has been in business for over 50 years compared to your clients 10+ years.
- has a long history representing US Presidents, Foreign Prime Ministers, Martin Luther King, Andy Worhal, Mikhail Gorbachev, Dan Rather, etc. etc..
- has a record in the Guinness World Book as largest lecture agency in the world.
- has been receiving legitimate press with a 10 page feature in the NYT, repeat coverage in Newsweek, etc. since the 1960's
Regardless of the link sources, etc.. this business is in the knowledge graph and Google can reliably and confidently present this business to people searching for competitive terms. Now that I've tooted their horn a little, please don't feel overwhelmed or interpret this to mean you can't compete with large global companies that have a long history of success and are well established in the SERPs... this is why I love SEO.
However, to be successful, you need to change your mindset a little and focus on what you can control:
- Instead of focusing on those highly competitive terms, you are going to have to "chip away" by finding and establishing your authority within various niches. Is there a specific industry or topic area where your client is more strong? APB appears to have invested heavily in the civil rights space at one time, and also in the global leaders space.
- Instead of counting their links and judging their link building practices, ask what you can do to build your own authority? Can you build press around your clients talent? Does your client sponsor/donate for charitable events? Has your client written "the Bible" on various topics within the speaking industry? Does your client have an internal publicist or PR agency getting their executives international speaking engagements?
- What can your client do that they can't? If you want to rank #1, you have to be better than them... make sure that message is clear to every person and machine....
Hope this helps!
Cheers,
Jake
-
I took a quick look at those links and I am not sure why you think they are black hat. They seem to have a lot of well-known clients which would account for the authoritative domains.
And when I clicked on the sites listed in Moz, I saw that there were in fact links back to APBSpeakers.com. [Even if the company wasn't named, its speakers were--you have to look at the page source, not just do a site search.]
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Which is Important? Backlinks or Internal Links? For SEO purpose.
Which is Important? Backlinks or Internal Links? For SEO purpose.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | BBT-Digital0 -
SEO companies that own linking properties
Hi everyone, I do some SEO work for a personal injury attorney, and due to his profession, he gets cold-called by every digital marketing company under the sun. He recently got called by a company that offers packages that include posting in multiple directories (all on domains they own), creating subdomains for search listings, and PR services like writing and distributing press releases for distribution to multiple media outlets. The content they write will obviously not be local. All this and more for less than $500 a month! I'm curious if any of you have any experience with companies like this and whether you consider them black hat. I realize I'm asking you to speculate on a very broad description of what they offer, but their linking strategies sound risky to me. What experiences have you had with companies like this? Do you know anyone who has ever gotten a penalty using these tactics? Thanks, in advance, for sharing your thoughts.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | ptdodge0 -
Cloaking for better user experience and deeper indexing - grey or black?
I'm working on a directory that has around 800 results (image rich results) in the top level view. This will likely grow over time so needs support thousands. The main issue is that it is built in ajax so paginated pages are dynamically generated and look like duplicate content to search engines. If we limit the results, then not all of the individual directory listing pages can be found. I have an idea that serves users and search engines what they want but uses cloaking. Is it grey or black? I've read http://moz.com/blog/white-hat-cloaking-it-exists-its-permitted-its-useful and none of the examples quite apply. To allow users to browse through the results (without having a single page that has a slow load time) we include pagination links but which are not shown to search engines. This is a positive user experience. For search engines we display all results (since there is no limit the number of links so long as they are not spammy) on a single page. This requires cloaking, but is ultimately serving the same content in slightly different ways. 1. Where on the scale of white to black is this? 2. Would you do this for a client's site? 3. Would you do it for your own site?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | ServiceCrowd_AU0 -
Should I Disavow More Links
My SEO website got hit with a very severe penalty about a year ago and it was totally banished from the rankings for all of the money terms like SEO, SEO company and search engine optimisation (before the penalty I ranked in the top 10-15 for all of those phrases, top 3 for SEO company). I was probably hit for being listed in shed loads of paid directories, low quality free directories, footer links in client sites, keyword forum signature links and articles with keyword rich text links. A month or so after I got hit I started trying to clean up my link profile, I got rid of all of the client website links, I changed the link text on the majority of forum signature links and article links, I managed to get rid of about 50 directory links and the ones that I could not get taken down I disavowed - about 150. During that time I sent 2-3 separate reconsideration requests and I got this message each time: "Links to your site violate Google's quality guidelines" After doing all of that work and being rejected I pretty much gave up - things just seemed to get worst, not only was I no longer ranking for the money terms, but all of my blog posts tanked as well. I got my site redesigned and switched to Wordpress - I used 301 redirects and everything but they totally didn't work. My organic traffic went down to less than 50 hits a day - before the penalty I was getting over 300 a day. Then on Saturday just gone, almost exactly a year after I got hit with the penalty I noticed my site ranking in position 23 on Google.co.uk in the UK for the competitive phrase SEO company from being absolutely nowhere and I do mean nowhere. This sign has given me hope and the motivation to get rid of the penalty altogether, update all of my articles, get rid of bad advice in old blog posts and get rid of the rest of the bad links. Thing is that I am nervous to go getting rid of more links and disavowing, what if I do more harm then good? Do you think the penalty has been removed and I should just leave the rest of the bad links or should I continue trying to clean things up? By the way, my website is http://www.seoco.co.uk
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Eavesy1 -
How to idesntify "inorganic" links
I am intending to remove spammy link of my website http://cellspyexpert.com/ which has been ranking well but I noticed a sudden drop in its ranking. I took a lot of care while building links, I tried to get links from relevant high authority websites with high page rank. I used profiling and guest blogging method only and never participated in any link scheme but received following message in google webmaster tools " Google Webmaster Tools notice of detected unnatural links to http://www.cellspyexpert.com/" I got this message on 19<sup>th</sup> Sep and ranking dropped on 6<sup>th</sup> Oct 1- Is this EMD issue?? I am pretty sure it is not because of EMD (Exact match domain) as I have been using phrase match, brand name+phrase and other anchor texts. I used exact match also but only 2%. 2- If it is bad quality, inorganic link issue?? Then I am intending to remove inorganic links so that I could send reconsideration request but facing problem in detecting inorganic links. Please advise!!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | shaz_lhr0 -
White Hat/Black Hat: Incentivized SEO Competition?
General Idea: Rules: The winner is the person who ranks highest for "Random Easy to Rank for Key Phrase" Prize: Some cool prize White or Black hat?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | LaunchAStartup0 -
Is this proposal white hat or likely to harm me in the long run?
Hi, I'm considering outsourcing some SEO to a company I got a first month trial sweetener deal with. I've not done this before and am a little unsure about what they propose doing, not sure if I'm being a bit paranoid or too controlly. Details of what they propose: Send them 10 keywords we're interested in ranking for. Work they will perform:
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | shabbychicoriginals
-Submit site to all major search engines
-Submit 20 social book marks for site
We'll produce 1 article + 19 spun variations of the article submitted to:
-30 directory sites
-10 press release sites and distribution networks Business Submitted to 5 business directories
5 social networks created Work and ranking report highlighting what has been done at the end of the month. Most of the stuff I've done already or can do myself. The elements that make me a bit suspicious are the: - 1 article plus 19 spun variations? 5 social networks created? What does that even mean? I did get this for about £20 for the 1st month with no commitment afterwards so I am tempted to let them try. But should I be a bit wary it might do more harm than good in the long run? Any advice\opinions would be much appreciated.0 -
Why are these sites so high with poor relevant links...
Hello, Keyword: TV Stands. I have been researching competitors for a client and we seem to be unable to understand why certains pages are ranking on page 1 of Google UK for keyword TV Stands. eg: http://www.furnitureinfashion.net/plasma-TV-stand.html (Google UK 8 - TV Stands) http://direct.tesco.com/q/N.1999542/Nr.99.aspx (Google UK 9 - TV Stands) The furniture in fashion has links from sites like: http://www.ummah.com/forum/ and http://www.muslimco.com/ which is totaly irrelevant to the site. Any ideas on other things as the tesco.com site does not have direct links to it. Cheers
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | JohnW-UK0